Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 228 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of petition - statutory alternative remedy of appeal - Section 9-C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - imposition of anti circumvention duty - interpretation of statute - Held that: - sub-section (1A) to Section 9A of the Tariff Act permits imposition of anti-circumvention duty also when imports take place into India in any other manner, whereby, the anti dumping duty so imposed is rendered ineffective - Review provided under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary remedy and the High Courts do not, as a matter of discretion, entertain Writ Petitions when an equally efficacious remedy is available. This principle applies especially when a machinery is created by the Statute to remedy and correct any wrong, when a right or liability is created by the same Statute, which also gives special remedy by way of appeal. The appellate remedy should not normally, and as a routine, be circumvented and bypassed. The aforesaid principle or rule is a self-imposed restriction and a restraint based on the principle of exhaustion of remedies. This ensures that the persons do not rush to the High Court for issue of a Writ, thereby rendering the statutory provisions almost meaningless and non-existent. The Courts have held that it is undesirable to lay down inflexible rules and, therefore, the dictum with reference to the pure theory of jurisdiction may have limitations and cannot be applied as a universal principle. Nevertheless, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and an alleged error in exercise of jurisdiction, i.e. a wrong or erroneous order. Parameters for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, inspite of alternative remedy in the two situations is different. In the former it is wider, while in the latter the Writ Court would be extra cautious and good reasons would be required to side step alternative remedy. In the context of the present case, and the submissions and counter to the same, it can, safely and without hesitation, be held that challenge is not to the lack of jurisdiction at the time of initiation but to purported failure to correctly apply the law and exercise jurisdiction. These issues can be appropriately and properly dealt with in the appellate proceedings. No special ground or reason is made out for the petitioner to ignore and to not adhere to and exercise the Statutory Appellate right. We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and leave it open to the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy by way of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - petition dismissed.
|